[Iarwain]

I just realized that a while ago when I started an (unpopular) thread on Bullies, I promised a series. A series does, of course consist of more than two bodies, and so here is part three.

In cosmic struggles between good and evil such as displayed in Tolkien literature, the reader is given the extraordinarily important job of differentiating between what is good and what is not. In this installment, the discussion will be about the nature of good character in Tolkien's writings and how certain properties are almost universal among the "good" of Arda. The term good will also be defined, as that is the most basic purpose of this thread.

We begin with a book definition of good, a fine place to start, but by no means a final solution. Here are a series of descriptions of goodness:
1) having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing,
2) Worthy of respect;
3) Honorable,
4) Competent or
5) Skilled,
6) Reliable,
7) Valid,
8)Genuine
9) Pleasant or enjoyable,
10) Of moral excellence,
11) Benevolent,
12) Kind,
13) Loyal, and
14) Socially correct.

Now we come to the applications of these definitions in Middle-Earth. For each definition I will pick a character (or object or thing) that accurately displays the qualities of goodness described:

Glamdring
Sauron
Elendil
Barliman Butterbur
Saruman
Samwise
The Gaffer's advice on Gardening
Bilbo
Pippin
Elrond
Gandalf
Theoden
Merry
Farmer Cotton

Of course, this list immediately poses problems with our ideas as to the definition of "good" in Middle-Earth. I'm sure very few people would consider Sauron good in any way. This is because we are looking in one part at the product, and in the other at the method. Definitions 1,2,4,5,7, 8 and 14 leave an almost infinite amount of room for personality, and the nature of the persons who fulfill those qualities. The rest begin to draw us nearer to the definition of "good" as we might perceive in/through Tolkien. Honor, reliability, authenticity, enjoyability, morality, benevolence, kindness, and loyalty are, then, more subjective definitions, but nevertheless much closer to the popular feeling of "goodness".

Now, again, it comes upon us to narrow the list once more. This time I will focus on individual words. Morality is probably the biggest of them all, and the others are mere extensions of it onto technically unrelated fields. It encompasses the ability to choose right over wrong, even to see the difference between the two. To copy Lewis's technique, we can look at the antonyms of morality to obtain an idea of its true definition. Here are some opposites of morality: wickedness, malice, evil, sin and malevolence. Now I ask you to look back at the fact that morality is a part of "goodness", and therefore any antonyms of morality should be at least in part antonyms of goodness. Perhaps we should put "goodness" as a whole through the same test. Here are it's antonyms: depravity, evil, cruelty, and immorality. Therefore, since it is a general characteristic of "goodness", as well as the opposite of evil, morality must be a necessary part of goodness in Tolkien's works. We could have, obviously, procured this conclusion though much more practical means, but now we have a sort of equation for determining the nature of goodness. For, if we try the same test with "genuine" or "competent", we arrive with definitions far from what might describe evil as we see it. Therefore, we can conclude that all "good" characters can be described by at least one of the following definitions: 3,6,9,10,11,12, and 13. I'm beginning to realize how shallow and purposeless this was, but it is a method to prove goodness by means other than our own instincts and without their actions, but by their personalities.


Enjoy *yawn*,
Iarwain

P.S. I just realized that this is really part three. Oh well.

P.P.S. Had to replace all the ?s with the quotations and apostrophes intended.

[ May 07, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]